This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

Isn't Lua a scripting language rather than a programming language? The Lua website (link here) says so: "Lua is a powerful, fast, lightweight, embeddable scripting language." I don't mean to be nitpicking here, but there's a difference between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.104.62 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It is under certain circumstances, maybe. For an encyclopedia, it should be noted as an interpreted programming language. Unit158 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There really isn't a difference between the two, and even if there is, no two people can agree what that difference is anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A scripting language is a special case of a programming language. When trying to emphasize the distinction, terms like "compiled language" or "non scripting language" are used. Nczempin (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Erm, no. The term "scripting language" isn't formally defined and no two people will quite agree what it means. Also, for the record, Lua could be considered a "compiled language" too, since standard Lua compiles to bytecode and LuaJIT has multiple compilation phases (first bytecode, then partial machine code). There are too many subtleties and too little consensus to nail these terms down. This should be considered in any attempt to describe them, otherwise you are just being a crank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Negative indices indicate offsets from the top of the stack (for example, −1 is the last element) ..."

The use of "last" just confused me more. Last added, or last to be removed? Judging from the preceding text, I'd guess it's the former, in which case I suggest this be changed to "for example, -1 is the most recently added element", or even "the last element added". It might also be worth mentioning whether positive indices are zero-indexed (is 0 or 1 the bottom-most element?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.7.42 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)